Chapter M: Aurelius, Eleutherius, Commodus (14)

_Syricius_ did not long enjoy the Satisfaction he had, to see the Schism of _Antioch_ ended in his Days, and a good Understanding settled anew between the East and the West. He died the same Year 398. and, according to the most probable Opinion, on the 26th of _November_[1332]. He is said, in his Epitaph, quoted by _Baronius_[1333], to have been a Man of a tender, compassionate, and generous Temper; to have studied the Happiness of the People committed to his Care; to have spared no Pains in procuring them the Blessings that flow from Peace and Tranquillity; and to have screened several Persons from the Wrath of the Emperor, to maintain the Rights of the Church[1334]. [Sidenote: _Was once honoured as a Saint._] He is commended by _Ambrose_, and the whole Council of _Milan_, as _a vigilant Pastor_[1335], by _Isidore_ of _Seville_ as _an illustrious Pontiff_[1336]; and he has even a Place among the other Saints, in most of the antient Martyrologies[1337]. However _Baronius_ has not thought him worthy of a Place in the _Roman_ Martyrology. It is well known, that the Charge of revising and correcting the _Roman_ Martyrology was committed, by Pope _Gregory_ XIII. to _Baronius_, with full Power to reject such as he should judge unworthy, and admit others in their room, whom he should declare worthy of the public Worship, and a Place there[N39]. [Sidenote: _Why expunged by_ Baronius _out of the Calendar of Saints_.] _The Keys of Heaven_, says a modern Writer, speaking of that Charge, _were taken from_ Peter, _and given to_ Baronius; _for it was not by_ Peter, _but by_ Baronius, _that some were excluded from, and others admitted into, Heaven_[1338]. He then shews, that by this _Second Minos_, as he styles him, several were driven from the Seats they had long held in Heaven, and to which they had a just Claim, to make room for others, who had no Claim. Among the former he names _Syricius_, whom he thinks _Baronius_ ought to have treated in a more friendly manner, upon the Recommendation of _Ambrose_, of the Council of _Milan_, and of _Isidore_. What thus prejudiced _Baronius_ against him, and outweighed, in his Scales, all the Recommendations that could be produced in his Favour, was his Indifference for _Jerom_ and _Paulinus_, and the Kindness he shewed to _Ruffinus_, _Jerom_’s Antagonist. _Syricius_, instead of protecting _Jerom_, as his Predecessor _Damasus_ had done, against the _Roman_ Clergy, whom he had provoked with his Writings, gave him, in a manner, up to their Resentment; which obliged him to abandon _Rome_, and return into the East, as I have related above. The Name of _Paulinus_, afterwards Bishop of _Nola_, is famous in the History of the Church, and celebrated by _Jerom_, _Ambrose_, _Austin_, and all the Writers of those Times. He had abandoned the World, and the immense Wealth he possessed, to lead a retired Life; and, in the Year 395. he passed through _Rome_, in his Way to _Nola_, which he had chosen for the Place of his Retirement. The Treatment he met with at _Rome_, from that Clergy, and _Syricius_ himself, must have been very unworthy of a Man of his Character, since it obliged him, as he himself writes[1339], to quit the City in great Haste, and pursue his Journey to _Nola_. Two Years afterwards _Ruffinus_ came to _Rome_, and there met with a very different Reception. For _Syricius_ received him, tho’ violently suspected of _Origenism_, with the greatest Marks of Esteem and Affection; and, after having entertained him a whole Year, gave him Letters of Communion at his Departure. Of this _Jerom_ complains, as if Advantage had been taken of the Bishop of _Rome_’s Simplicity, to impose upon him[1340]. I will not pretend, as some have done, to justify _Ruffinus_; but cannot help observing, that such a Charge ought not to be admitted against him, upon the bare Authority of _Jerom_, or of those, who have only copied what he writ.

-----

Footnote N39:

The _Roman_ Martyrology contains the Names of such Saints as may be
publicly worshiped, and of the Places where they died, with a succinct
Account of the most remarkable Feats which they are supposed to have
performed. I said, _who are publicly worshiped_; for in private every
one is allowed to honour, worship, and invoke whom they please,
provided they have sufficient Grounds to believe them in _a State of
Happiness_, or _in the Way to it_, that is, in Heaven, or in
Purgatory; for the Souls in Purgatory may be privately worshiped and
invoked; nay, most of the Popish Divines are now of Opinion, that even
a canonized Saint may be still in Purgatory. When Learning began to
revive, many gross Mistakes were discovered in the _Roman_, as well as
in the other Martyrologies, some being placed among the Saints, and
consequently worshiped as Saints, who had been notorious Sinners; and
others daily invoked, who had never existed. That the Church therefore
might be no longer misled in her Worship, _Gregory_ XIII. thought it
necessary to interpose his _infallible Authority_; and, having
accordingly, ordered _Baronius_ to revise and correct the _Roman_
Martyrology, he confirmed, by a special Bull, dated the 14th of
_January_ 1584. all the Emendations, Additions, Corrections, _&c._
which _Baronius_ had been pleased to make, threatening with _the
Indignation of the Almighty God, and of his Apostles St._ Peter _and
St._ Paul, all who should presume to make any further Alterations. And
yet many Alterations have been made since _Gregory_’s Time; and that
many more might and ought to be made, has been sufficiently shewn by
many Protestant, and some Roman Catholic, Divines.

-----

[Sidenote: Jerom _and_ Ruffinus _quarrel_.]

_Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_ had lived several Years in close Friendship, and great Intimacy; but, falling out in the Year 393. their former Friendship was turned at once into an open and avowed Enmity. What gave Occasion to this Breach I shall relate hereafter, and only observe here, that _Jerom_ not only quarreled with _Ruffinus_, but with all the Friends of _Ruffinus_; nay, and with those too, who, professing an equal Friendship for both, would not break with either, or any-ways interfere in the Quarrel. Among these was the celebrated _Roman_ Matron _Melania_, so frequently spoken of, and so highly commended, by _Austin_, by _Paulinus_, and, above all, by _Jerom_ himself, who has filled his Letters with her Praises, proposing her as a true Pattern of every Virtue becoming her Sex.

[Sidenote: Jerom _quarrels with all the Friends of_ Ruffinus, _especially with_ Melania.]

_Melania_ had retired with _Ruffinus_ to _Jerusalem_, Twenty-seven Years before, and continued there practising, under his Direction, those Works of Charity, which _Jerom_ so often admires and extols. It could not therefore be expected that she should discard the _Partner of her holy Life, and all her good Works_, as _Paulinus_ styles him[1341], the Minute the other was pleased to dislike him, or, indeed, that she should take any Part at all in the Quarrel. And yet, because she prudently declined taking Part, but continued to shew the same Affection and Esteem for _Ruffinus_, which she had done before; _Jerom_, forgetful of the Regard that was due to a Matron of her Birth and Piety, and of the high Encomiums which he had himself bestowed on her, began to inveigh with no less Bitterness against her, than against _Ruffinus_ himself. [Sidenote: _His Conduct towards her._] In one of his Letters, still extant[1342], after finding Fault with one of _Ruffinus_’s Friends, thought to be _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, he adds; “But, after all, he is not so much to blame as his Instructors _Ruffinus_ and _Melania_, who, with a great deal of Trouble and Pains, have taught him to know nothing.” _Ruffinus_ tells us, that _Jerom_, finding that _Melania_, who was a Matron of great Judgment and Penetration, did not approve of his Actions and Conduct, thereupon spitefully erased out of his Chronicle, what he had there written in her Praise[1343]. But he did not, nor was it, perhaps, in his Power to make such an Alteration in all the Copies; for what he is said to have cancelled, is still remaining in all the printed, as well as manuscript Copies of that Work, which have reached our Times. _Melania_ lived Eighteen Years after, steadily pursuing the same Course of Life, for which _Jerom_ had once proposed her as a Pattern to her whole Sex[1344]. She died at _Jerusalem_ in the Year 411. and died poor, having spent an immense Estate in relieving the Needy and Indigent, not only of the Countries where she lived, and through which she passed, but those too of the most distant Provinces of the Empire. For Persons in Poverty and Distress, whether in _Persia_ or _Britain_, says the Author of her Life[1345], were alike the Objects of her Charity, and felt alike the Effects of her Generosity and Good-nature. She died, but with her did not die the Rancour and Spleen which _Jerom_ had for so many Years harboured in his Breast against her. For, carrying his Resentment even beyond the Grave, while the Poor were every-where bemoaning, with Tears, the Loss of so generous a Benefactress, while the Writers were paying the deserved Tribute of Praise to the Virtues of so pious a Matron, _Jerom_, instead of joining the rest in the common Grief, strove to dry up their Tears, to drown their Praises, by throwing out several peevish and ill-natured Reflections on the Memory of the Deceased. As the famous _Pelagius_ had inscribed a Book to her before he broached his Opinions, _Jerom_, in the Letter which he writ to _Ctesiphon_ against the _Pelagians_, could not forbear bringing her in, and observing on that Occasion, with a malignant Quibble, that the very Name of _Melania_ bespoke (in the _Greek_ Tongue), and sufficiently declared, the _Blackness_ of her Treachery and Perfidiousness[1346].

[Sidenote: Syricius _not to be condemned on the bare Authority of_ Jerom.]

Such was the Conduct of _Jerom_ towards that illustrious Matron, in her Life-time, and after her Death. From this Conduct I leave the Reader to judge, whether the Authority of so prejudiced a Writer ought to have been of such Weight with _Baronius_ as to make him exclude her, as well as _Syricius_, from the _Roman_ Martyrology, or the Calendar of Saints. Should we grant _Ruffinus_ to have really held the Errors which _Jerom_ charged him with, it must still be owned, that _Melania_ acted, as became a Person of her Wisdom, Piety, and Experience, in suspending her Judgment, and not breaking with _Ruffinus_, till she was otherwise convinced, than by the Invectives of his Antagonist, equally levelled against herself, that he was no longer worthy of her Friendship and Regard. As for _Syricius_, _Jerom_ rather commends than blames him, even where he complains of his Kindness to _Ruffinus_. For he only says, that _Ruffinus_ abused the Simplicity of _Syricius_, who judged of the Spirit of others from his own[1347]; which was saying, in other Words, that he was a good Man, but mistaken in his Judgment, or not infallible: so that his only Crime, according to _Jerom_, was want of Infallibility. However, upon the Authority of that Father, _Baronius_ not only condemns the Conduct of _Syricius_, but, rashly prying into the inscrutable Secrets of Providence, pretends his Days to have been shortened for the Countenance he gave to _Ruffinus_, and the Remissness he shewed in suppressing the Errors, with which he was charged. It is certain, that _Ruffinus_ was well received, and entertained, in a very hospitable manner, by _Syricius_, during his Stay at _Rome_; and that, upon his leaving that City, he received from him Letters of Communion. Now, if _Syricius_ did not know, or did not believe, that _Ruffinus_ held those Errors, how unjust is it to blame him for the Kindness he shewed to a Man of _Ruffinus_’s Character! If he did know, and yet gave him Letters of Communion, how will _Baronius_ be able to clear _Syricius_ from the Imputation of holding the same Errors[N40]?

-----

Footnote N40:

A modern Writer[N40.1], taking the Part of _Syricius_ against
_Baronius_, has composed a whole Dissertation, and not a short one, to
shew _how undeservedly_ Syricius _has been cashiered in this Review of
the Church triumphant, while many others passed Muster for great
Saints, whose Virtues_, he might have said, whose very Existence, _may
be justly disputed_. I shall not enter into the tedious Detail of his
Arguments and Reasons, but only observe, that the Name of _Syricius_
ought not to have been struck out of the Calendar, while the Names of
the _Arian_ Pope _Liberius_, and the Antipope _Felix_, his Antagonist,
were kept in; though, upon other Accounts, I think him myself very
unworthy of the Name of a Saint.

Footnote N40.1:

Florentinus, in vetus Martyrol. Hieronymi, p. 1001-1010.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Misunderstanding between_ Syricius _and_ Paulinus _no Charge against_ Syricius.]

As for the Treatment _Paulinus_ of _Nola_ met with from _Syricius_, there was, no doubt, a Misunderstanding between them; but, as I am quite in the Dark as to the Cause of it, I will not take upon me to condemn the one rather than the other. Perhaps they were both to blame; perhaps they both meant well, and neither was to blame. However that be, the Misunderstanding between them was soon removed; for, during the remaining Part of _Syricius_’s Life, _Paulinus_ went constantly to _Rome_ once a Year, as he himself declares, in one of his Letters[1348]. _Syricius_, it is true, did not take _Jerom_ into his Protection, as his Predecessor had done, nor shew him the same Kindness; which is the Third Charge brought by _Baronius_ against him, but of no more Weight than the other Two, that is, of none at all. _Jerom_, prompted by his Zeal, and censorious Temper, could not help inveighing, with great Bitterness, in all his Writings, against the Looseness and Debauchery, which universally prevailed, in his Time, among the _Roman_ Clergy, and the pious Frauds they made use of to extort Legacies and Presents from old Men, from Widows, and from Orphans. _Syricius_ might have been as much offended at the Vices of his Libertine Clergy, as _Jerom_ was, and even studied to reform them; but, at the same time, be glad, without deserving the least Reproach on that score, to get rid of so troublesome a Censor, who thus exposed their Irregularities to the Eyes, and them to the Contempt, of the World[N41].

-----

Footnote N41:

The Festival of _Syricius_ was never kept, it seems, by public
Authority; but is marked in some antient Martyrologies, on the 22d of
_February_, and in others on the 26th of _November_. The last was more
probably the Day of his Death, since he is said, both by _Prosper_ and
_Isidore_, to have governed 14 Years, to complete which one Month only
will be wanting, if we place his Death on that Day; and several, if
with _Baronius_ we suppose him to have died on the 22d of
_February_[N41.1]; for, as to the Year of his Death, there is no
Disagreement among Authors. _Baronius_ mentions an antient Picture,
Part whereof, says he, is still to be seen in the Title of Pope
_Syricius_[N41.2]. But that Picture is no more to be seen, and he
explains himself no farther.

Footnote N41.1:

Vid. Boll. 22 Feb. p. 282.

Footnote N41.2:

Bar. ad ann. 395. n. 6.

-----

_Syricius_ was interred in the Cœmetery of _Priscilla_, but his Body was translated, about the Latter-end of the Eighth Century, to the Church of St. _Praxedes_[1349], where his Remains (for _Baronius_ will not allow us to call them Relics) still lie unregarded.

-----

Footnote 1224:

Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5. Anast. c. 29. Boll. Apr. t. 1. p. 32.

Footnote 1225:

Vide Bar. ad ann. 385. n. 5.

Footnote 1226:

Id. ib. n. 6.

Footnote 1227:

Concil. t. 1. p. 69. 689-691.

Footnote 1228:

Ib. p. 689.

Footnote 1229:

Isid. ser. c. 3.

Footnote 1230:

Con. ib.

Footnote 1231:

Ib. p. 690.

Footnote 1232:

Ibid.

Footnote 1233:

Ib. p. 689, 690.

Footnote 1234:

Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.

Footnote 1235:

Ib. & p. 691.

Footnote 1236:

Inn. ep. 3. c. 1. t. 1. p. 755, 756.

Footnote 1237:

Cod. Rom. a Ques. cum Leone edit. c. 29.

Footnote 1238:

Conc. t. 1. p. 1210.

Footnote 1239:

Ib. p. 1329.

Footnote 1240:

Soz. l. 1. c. 23.

Footnote 1241:

Socr. l. 1. c. 11.

Footnote 1242:

Suid. in vit. Paph.

Footnote 1243:

Chricht. de contin. sacerd. c. 4.

Footnote 1244:

Melanch. in Apol. p. 13.

Footnote 1245:

Bellar. de cler. l. 1. c. 21.

Footnote 1246:

Hier. in Jovin. l. 1.

Footnote 1247:

Ign. ep. ad Philadelp.

Footnote 1248:

Bell. de cler. l. 1. c. 20.

Footnote 1249:

Theod. l. 1. c. 7. Concil. l. 2. p. 28, 29. Ambr. ep. 25.

Footnote 1250:

Epiph. hæres. 59.

Footnote 1251:

Hier. l. 2. in Jov.

Footnote 1252:

Vide Cæs. comm. de bell. Gall. l. 6. Cic. div. l. 1.

Footnote 1253:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1028.

Footnote 1254:

Bolland. prop. p. 213.

Footnote 1255:

Bar. ad ann. 387. n. 65, 66. ex t. 1. ep. Rom. Pont. p. 48.

Footnote 1256:

Hier. ep. 29.

Footnote 1257:

Aug. ad Con. c. 3.

Footnote 1258:

Concil. t. 1. p. 742. ed. Binian.

Footnote 1259:

Concil. t. 1. p. 742.

Footnote 1260:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1279.

Footnote 1261:

Aug. ad Conc. c. 3.

Footnote 1262:

Bar. ad ann. 405. n. 56.

Footnote 1263:

Pet. de Natal. l. 11. c. 89.

Footnote 1264:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 121.

Footnote 1265:

Ad Cte. t. 2. p. 152.

Footnote 1266:

Id. ep. 82. 29. in Isai. c. 60.

Footnote 1267:

Leo, t. p. 831.

Footnote 1268:

Aug. ad Con. contra mendac. per totum.

Footnote 1269:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1028-1030.

Footnote 1270:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1578.

Footnote 1271:

Vide Blond. censur. in decretal. epist. p. 550.

Footnote 1272:

Quesn. dissert. 5. sur S. Leon.

Footnote 1273:

Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. t. 2. p. 94.

Footnote 1274:

Id. ib. l. 1. c. 25. Aug. hæres. 82. Amb. ep. 7.

Footnote 1275:

Hier. ib. c. 1.

Footnote 1276:

Aug. op. imp. l. 4. c. 121. & hær. 82. Amb. ep. 7.

Footnote 1277:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2. & ad. Bon. l. 2. c. 2.

Footnote 1278:

Hier. ib. c. 25. Amb. ep. 7.

Footnote 1279:

Amb. ibid.

Footnote 1280:

Aug. hæres. 82. Hier. in Jovin. l. 2. c. 23.

Footnote 1281:

Amb. ep. 6.

Footnote 1282:

Hier. ep. 26.

Footnote 1283:

Id. ep. 50.

Footnote 1284:

Amb. ep. 6.

Footnote 1285:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1286:

Id. ep. 7.

Footnote 1287:

Aug. in Jul. l. 1. c. 2.

Footnote 1288:

Cod. Theod. 16. t. 5. l. 53.

Footnote 1289:

Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.

Footnote 1290:

Hier. in Vigil. c. 1.

Footnote 1291:

Vide p. 220.

Footnote 1292:

Soz. l. 5. c. 15. & l. 7. c. 15. Hier. vir. ill. c. 125.

Footnote 1293:

Theodor. l. 5. c. 25.

Footnote 1294:

Theod. ib.

Footnote 1295:

Amb. ep. 9.

Footnote 1296:

Theod. ib.

Footnote 1297:

Id. ib. & Amb. 9.

Footnote 1298:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1072.

Footnote 1299:

Amb. ep. 9.

Footnote 1300:

Laun. ep. 7. p. 10.

Footnote 1301:

Bar. ad ann. 391.

Footnote 1302:

Blond. primaut. p. 237.

Footnote 1303:

Amb. ep. 9.

Footnote 1304:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1305:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1306:

Theod. l. 5. c. 23.

Footnote 1307:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1308:

Concil. t. 4. p. 830.

Footnote 1309:

Facund. Hermian. l. 8. c. 1.

Footnote 1310:

Ruff. l. 11. c. 22.

Footnote 1311:

Mercat. t. 2. p. 128.

Footnote 1312:

Aug. ep. 150.

Footnote 1313:

Amb. ep. 5. & Instit. Virg. p. 5.

Footnote 1314:

Merc. ib.

Footnote 1315:

Amb. ib.

Footnote 1316:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1317:

Amb. ibid.

Footnote 1318:

Concil. t. 2. p. 1274.

Footnote 1319:

Ib. p. 1275.

Footnote 1320:

Ib.

Footnote 1321:

Soz. l. 8. c. 3.

Footnote 1322:

Theod. l. 5. c. 23. Soz. l. 8. c. 3.

Footnote 1323:

Marc. t. 2. p. 86.

Footnote 1324:

Socr. l. 5. c. 15.

Footnote 1325:

Soz. l. 8. c. 3. Socr. l. 6. c. 9. Pallad. dial. c. 4.

Footnote 1326:

Theod. l. 5. c. 23.

Footnote 1327:

Soz. l. 5. c. 15. Theod. ib. Pallad. dial. p. 10.

Footnote 1328:

Theod. l. 5. c. 35.

Footnote 1329:

Theodor. Lect. l. 2.

Footnote 1330:

Vid. p. 221.

Footnote 1331:

Socr. l. 5. c. 5. Soz. l. 7. c. 3.

Footnote 1332:

Vid. Bolland. 22 Feb. p. 282.

Footnote 1333:

Bar. ad an. 398. in app.

Footnote 1334:

Id. ib.

Footnote 1335:

Amb. ep. 7.

Footnote 1336:

Isid. vir. ill. c. 3.

Footnote 1337:

Florent. p. 999. Bolland. Feb. 22. p. 282.

Footnote 1338:

Aguilera santi di Palermo.

Footnote 1339:

Paul. ep. 1.

Footnote 1340:

Hier. ep. 16. & in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, & 7.

Footnote 1341:

Paul. ep. 9.

Footnote 1342:

Hier. ep. 101.

Footnote 1343:

Ex Ruf. l. 2.

Footnote 1344:

Vid. Hier. ep. 99.

Footnote 1345:

Pallad. hist. Lausiac. in Bibl. Patr. c. 118.

Footnote 1346:

Hier. ad Ctes. l. 2.

Footnote 1347:

Hier. in Ruf. l. 3. c. 6, 7.

Footnote 1348:

Paul. ep. 16.

Footnote 1349:

Vid. Boll. prop. p. 59.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCADIUS, ANASTASIUS, HONORIUS.
_Thirty-eighth_ BISHOP _of_
Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 398. Anastasius _writes to_ Paulinus.]

_Syricius_ was succeeded by _Anastasius_[1350], after a Vacancy of Twenty Days, according to some; and, according to others, of near Two Months. He was no sooner chosen, than he writ a kind and obliging Letter to _Paulinus_, then at _Nola_ in _Campania_, and an other in his Commendation to the Bishops of that Province[1351]. This he is supposed to have done, in order to efface the bad Impression, which the Treatment _Paulinus_ had met with in the Time of _Syricius_, might have given him against that See, and the _Roman_ Clergy.

[Sidenote: _What occasioned the Quarrel between_ Jerom _and_ Ruffinus.]

It was in the Time of _Anastasius_, and soon after his Election, that the famous Dispute arose between _Jerom_ and _Ruffinus_, which was afterwards carried on with a Warmth on both Sides quite unbecoming Men of their Profession. Of this Quarrel, and the Part _Anastasius_ acted on that Occasion, the Writers of those Times give us the following Account. _Ruffinus_, a Presbyter of _Aquileia_, and a great Admirer of _Origen_, having accompanied _Melania_, whom he had attended Twenty-five Years at _Jerusalem_, on her Return to _Rome_ in the Time of _Syricius_, was received there with extraordinary Marks of Esteem by the _Roman_ Clergy, and _Syricius_ himself, as I have observed elsewhere[1352]. [Sidenote: Ruffinus _translates_ Origen_’s_Periarchon.] Encouraged by the Reception he met with, he continued a whole Year at _Rome_; and during that Time published, but without putting his Name to it, a _Latin_ Translation of _Origen_’s _Periarchon_, or _Treatise of Principles_, having first removed the Prejudice which some might entertain against that Writer, by the Translation of an Apology, which the Martyr _Pamphylus_ had composed in his Vindication, while he was in Prison. To this Apology he added a Piece of his own, shewing that most of the Errors ascribed to _Origen_ had been maliciously inserted into his Works by his Enemies after his Death[1353]. In the Preface to the _Periarchon_ itself he also declared, that, in Imitation of a learned Brother, meaning _Jerom_, who had translated above Seventy of _Origen_’s Books, he had either corrected or suppressed such Errors as had appeared to him repugnant to the Articles of the Catholic Faith[1354]. [Sidenote: _Many at_ Rome _embrace the Errors of_ Origen.] The Work, thus recommended, was received with uncommon Applause at _Rome_, and the Sentiments of _Origen_ greedily embraced, and warmly maintained, by great Numbers of the Clergy as well as the Laity, to whom _Origen_ had till then been, it seems, utterly unknown. This happened in the Time of _Syricius_, who, either not suspecting _Ruffinus_, as he had not put his Name to the Translation, or perhaps not judging him worthy of Censure for barely relating the Sentiments of another, or supposing that, agreeably to his Preface, he had suppressed whatever was wrong in the original Work, gave him Letters of Communion at his Departure from _Rome_: for he had no sooner published his Translation than he left that City and returned to _Aquileia_. _Syricius_ died soon after, and _Anastasius_ was no sooner chosen in his room, than the famous _Roman_ Matron _Marcella_, offended at the new Doctrines that began to prevail in _Rome_, applied to him, pressing him to put a Stop to the growing Evil, and at the same time accusing _Ruffinus_ as the Author of the Translation, to which alone it was owing[1355]. [Sidenote: _Errors left in the Work, notwithstanding the Corrections made by the Translator._] To make good this Charge, she produced some Copies corrected with _Ruffinus_’s own Hand; and several Persons appeared, who, having by her means been reclaimed from the Errors of _Origen_, owned they had been led into them by the Disciples of _Ruffinus_[1356]. This _Jerom_ cannot relate without launching into the Praises of his Heroine _Marcella_, crying up her Zeal, extolling her Courage and Resolution, in thus making head against so numerous a Band, meaning the _Origenists_ in _Rome_, while the Clergy declined that Trouble, or rather promoted the Doctrines they ought to have opposed. But elsewhere he will not allow Women, under any Pretence whatsoever, to concern themselves in religious Controversies. _To meddle in Disputes concerning Faith or Religion, is not at all the Province_ (says he, with the Words of St. _Paul_) _of silly Women, laden with Sins, led away with divers Lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the Knowlege of the Truth_[1357]. But he speaks here of _Melania_, who was no less attached to _Ruffinus_ than _Marcella_ was to him.

[Sidenote: Jerom_’s Charge against_ Ruffinus.]

In the _Periarchon_ were contained, without all doubt, many unfound and unwarrantable Notions, and _Ruffinus_ corrected those only that related to the Trinity. _He corrected_, says _Jerom_, _what_ Origen _had impiously written concerning the Trinity, being well apprised it would have given great Offence at_ Rome. _But as to his other Errors, those especially concerning the Fall of the Angels, and the first Man, the Resurrection, the World or Worlds of_ Epicurus, _the Restoration of all Things_, &c. _he either left them, as he found them in the Original, or confirmed them with Reasons borrowed from the Comment of_ Didymus, _an avowed Defender of_ Origen. _Thus he declared himself a Catholic with respect to the Trinity; that in other Points the Reader might not be aware of him as an Heretic_[1358].

[Sidenote: Ruffinus_’s Answers_.]

In Answer to this Charge, _Ruffinus_ declared, that it was never his Intention to correct all the Errors that were ascribed to _Origen_; that the Declaration he had made, in his Preface to the _Periarchon_, ought to be restrained to those Errors only that related to the Trinity; and that it was very uncharitable to judge of his Faith, from the Faith of the Author he translated, and not from his own Words. He then declares his Sentiments touching some particular Points, in which _Origen_ was thought to differ from the Church; adding, that where _Origen_ differed from the Catholic Church, he differed from _Origen_.

[Sidenote: Jerom _condemns_ Origen, _and inveighs against_ Ruffinus.]

_Anastasius_, notwithstanding the Solicitations of _Marcella_, declined either proceeding against _Ruffinus_, or censuring his Translation, till Two Years after, when _Jerom_, in a new Version which he published of the same Work, undertook to prove, that several Opinions of _Origen_ were truly heretical, and as such ought to be condemned by the Church. As to _Ruffinus_, he inveighed bitterly against him, as if he had translated that Work with no other View but to propagate the Errors it contained. Thus began the famous Quarrel between these Two Writers, which occasioned no small Disturbance in the Church, some siding with _Jerom_ against _Ruffinus_, and others with _Ruffinus_ against _Jerom_. Among the former, the most sanguine were _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, _Epiphanius_ Bishop of _Constantia_ in the Island of _Cyprus_, and _Anastasius_ Bishop of _Rome_. _Theophilus_ not only condemned in a Council, which he summoned for that Purpose, the Errors of _Origen_, but _Origen_ himself, declaring him an Heretic, and forbidding all under his Jurisdiction to read, or even keep his Works by them; which is the first Instance we have of such Prohibitions. [Sidenote: Origen _condemned by_ Anastasius _and several other Bishops_.] His Example was followed by _Epiphanius_, _Anastasius_, _Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, _Chromatius_ Bishop of _Aquileia_, and several others. But some, and among the rest _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, and _Chrysostom_ then Bishop of _Constantinople_, disapproving the rash Conduct of their Collegues, could by no means be induced to confirm the Sentence they had pronounced; which _Epiphanius_ resented to such a Degree, that he immediately separated himself from their Communion. _Sozomen_ adds, that he even refused to pray for young _Theodosius_, while he was dangerously ill, because his Mother _Eudoxia_ would not banish from _Constantinople_ some Monks who had warmly espoused the Cause of _Origen_[1359]. _Ruffinus_ ranks _Epiphanius_ among those Plagiaries, who, borrowing from _Origen_ all they said or writ, cried down his Works, in order to deter others from reading them, and consequently from discovering, that what was admired in them was not their own[1360].

[Sidenote: Ruffinus _is summoned to_ Rome.]

_Origen_ being thus condemned as an Heretic, near 150 Years after his Death, _Anastasius_, at the Instigation of _Marcella_, _Pammachius_, _Oceanus_, and some other of _Jerom_’s Friends in _Rome_, writ to _Ruffinus_, complaining of his Translation, and summoning him to appear, and give an Account of his Faith. In Answer to this Letter, _Ruffinus_ sent him a Confession of Faith intirely agreeable to that of the Catholic Church, adding, that he held no other; that his Faith had been sufficiently tried in the Persecution of _Valens_; and that, as to the Translation of _Origen_’s Work, he had there neither approved nor disapproved, but barely related, the Sentiments of that Writer. He modestly declined complying with the Summons calling him to _Rome_; and concluded with declaring, that the Faith of the _Roman_ Church and his were one and the same[1362][N42].

-----

Footnote N42:

The chief Errors of _Origen_ were concerning the Trinity, the
Resurrection of the Body, the Eternity of Hell-Torments, and the
Origin of Souls. If his Works were not interpolated by the Heretics,
as _Ruffinus_ pretended they were, it is no easy Matter to determine
what was his real Opinion with respect to the Trinity; for in some
Passages he seems to acknowlege an Equality, and in others to
establish an Inequality, between the Father and the Son. As to the
Resurrection, he was accused of not believing, that the Body, at least
the same Body, was to rise from the Dead. He denied the Eternity of
Hell-Torments, and held, that even the Devils would repent in the End,
and be saved. He maintained the Souls to have been created before the
World; to have been confined to the Bodies, which they animated, as so
many Prisons, to expiate there the Sins which they had committed; to
be in perpetual Motion passing from one Body to another, and at last
to become Angels. With the Three last Errors chiefly _Ruffinus_ was
charged by St. _Jerom_; and it was to clear himself from such an
Imputation, that, in his Answer to _Anastasius_ summoning him to
_Rome_, he declared his Belief with respect to those Articles, styling
his Answer on that Account an _Apology_. As to the Trinity, those whom
they called _Origenists_, were allowed, even by their Enemies, to be
quite orthodox in their Belief of that Mystery. Touching the
Resurrection, _Ruffinus_ declared and explained his Faith in such
clear Terms as ought to have left no room, even for St. _Jerom_, to
arraign him on that Head. He expressed himself in a manner no less
orthodox with respect to the Eternity of the Pains of Hell. But, as to
the Origin of Souls, he owns himself to be quite at a Loss what to
think, and what to determine, on that Subject, since no particular
Opinion had been yet settled by the Church, and the Ecclesiastical
Writers disagreed in that Point among themselves; some believing, with
_Tertullian_ and _Lactantius_, the Souls to have been formed with the
Bodies; and others maintaining, with _Origen_, that they were all
created before the World: as to himself, he declared, that he held
nothing for certain but what he was taught by the Church, _viz._ that
the Souls as well as the Bodies proceeded from God[N42.1]. This
_Jerom_ called a false, artful, and imposing Confession, as if
_Ruffinus_ did not believe what he professed in the most solemn Manner
to believe; and _Anastasius_, judging of his Faith not from his own
Words, but from those of _Jerom_, separated himself from his
Communion.

I cannot help observing here, that _Jerom_, whom nothing now will
satisfy but the Condemnation of _Origen_, used a few Years before to
inveigh with the same Gall and Bitterness against the Enemies of that
Writer as he does now against his Friends, condemning with as much
Acrimony those who accused him, as he now condemns those who excuse
him. _Origen_ had been condemned in his Life-time by _Demetrius_
Bishop of _Alexandria_, and by several other Bishops: and _Jerom_,
after telling us, in speaking of the Judgment that was given against
him, that he had written more Books than others had time to read; and
that in the Number of his Volumes he had surpassed _Varro_, and the
other most eloquent Writers both _Greek_ and _Latin_; adds, _But what
Reward did he receive for so much Toil and Labour? He was condemned by
the Bishop_ Demetrius; _and, if we except the Bishops of_ Palæstine,
Arabia, Phœnicia, _and_ Achaia, _he was condemned by all the rest.
Even_ Rome _assembled her Senate against him, not because he taught
any new Doctrines, or held any heretical Opinions, which those who
snarl at him, like so many mad Dogs, would fain make us believe; but
because they could not bear the bright Rays of his Eloquence and
Knowlege, and were forced to be dumb when he spoke_. This Passage is
quoted by _Ruffinus_, and _Jerom_ himself owns it to have been copied
from his Letter to _Paula_[N42.2].

By the Senate that _Rome_ assembled against _Origen_, _Jerom_ meant,
no doubt, the Bishop and Clergy of that City: and that he made no
Account of their Judgment, sufficiently appears from the contemptuous
and ironical Manner he speaks of it. However, that Father is brought
in by _Baronius_ as an Evidence for _Infallibility_, on account of the
Regard which he afterwards paid to the Judgment of _Anastasius_,
styling it _a decisive Sentence_. But _Jerom_ had then changed his
Opinion; and _Anastasius_ only condemned what he had condemned before;
so that from the great Regard which _Jerom_ shewed on that Occasion
for the Judgment of _Anastasius_, _Baronius_ can at most conclude,
that he thought the Popes infallible when they agreed with him; for
that he thought them fallible when they disagreed with him, is
manifest from his not acquiescing in the Judgment of another Pope
condemning _Origen_, when he himself had not yet condemned him.

Footnote N42.1:

Ruff. ad Anast. p. 202.

Footnote N42.2:

Hier. vir. illustr. c. 54. Ruff. l. 2. p. 225.

-----

[Sidenote: Anastasius _separates himself from his Communion_.]

But this Confession, however orthodox, did not satisfy _Anastasius_, or rather _Jerom_ and his Friends in _Rome_. They continued, says _Ruffinus_, the Persecution which they had so successfully begun, and with their malicious Suggestions prevailed in the End on _Anastasius_ to comply with their unjust Demands[1363]; that is, I suppose, to separate himself from his Communion: for _Anastasius_, in his Answer to a Letter which _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_ had writ in favour of _Ruffinus_, acquaints that Prelate, that he had cut him off from his Communion, and left him to be judged by God and his own Conscience. _As to_ Origen, says he in the same Letter, _I knew not before who he was, nor what he had writ_. Ruffinus _has translated him into our Language; and, in so doing, what else could he have in view but to infect this Church with his pernicious Doctrines? He has expressed his own Sentiments in translating those of his Author; and is therefore no less guilty than Origen himself, whom we have all condemned_[1364][N43].

-----

Footnote N43:

The same Charge lies against _Jerom_; nay, he was the more guilty of
the Two. For he had not only translated many of _Origen_’s Works,
containing Errors no less repugnant to the Catholic Truths than any in
the _Periarchon_, but had besides filled his Comments on the
Scripture, especially on the Epistle to the _Ephesians_, with the
worst of Origen’s Errors, _viz._ with those relating to the
Resurrection of the Body, to the Pre-existence of the Souls, and to
the Duration of Hell-Torments, as is manifest from the many Passages
quoted by _Ruffinus_ out of the Comments of that Father. _Jerom_ found
great Fault with _Ruffinus_, for not confuting the Errors which he
translated; concluding from thence, that he held the same Doctrines:
and yet he was himself so far from confuting in his Comments any of
_Origen_’s erroneous Opinions, that on the contrary he often delivered
them in such manner as made many, and St. _Austin_ among the rest,
believe them to be his own[N43.1]. Nay, in one Place he seems to own,
that he held some of _Origin_’s Errors[N43.2]: but ends what he there
writes of him thus; _If you believe me, I never was an_ Origenist;
_but if you absolutely insist upon my having been one, I now tell you,
that I am so no more; and it is to convince you of this, that I am
become the Accuser of_ Origen.

Footnote N43.1:

Hier. ep. 89.

Footnote N43.2:

Hier. ep. 65.

-----

In the same Letter _Anastasius_ mentions with great Joy a Decree of the Emperors, that is, of _Arcadius_ and _Honorius_, forbidding the Works of _Origen_, and imposing severe Penalties on such as should for the future read or peruse them[N44].

-----

Footnote N44:

_Ruffinus_ pretended this Letter to be supposititious, and to have
been forged by St. _Jerom_, alleging, that he could not believe the
Bishop of _Rome_ capable of such a crying Piece of Injustice as to
condemn an innocent Man, and condemn him in his Absence. He added,
that if _Anastasius_ had ever written such a Letter to _John_ of
_Jerusalem_, _John_, with whom he lived in great Intimacy, would have
acquainted him with it, which he had not done. In Answer to this
Charge, _Jerom_ refers him to the Archives of the _Roman_
Church[N44.1]; and to _Jerom_ I refer the Jesuit _Halloix_, supposing
the Letter to have been feigned, tho’ not by St. _Jerom_, on account
of the following Words, that seem to wound the pretended Supremacy. _I
have intirely separated myself from him_, meaning _Ruffinus_: _I will
not even know where he is, or what he is doing: let him try, if he
pleases, to be absolved elsewhere_. So that _Anastasius_ thought he
might be absolved elsewhere, though condemned at _Rome_. This
_Halloix_, more jealous of the Papal Supremacy than the Pope himself,
will not allow, and therefore pretends the Letter to be
supposititious. But, since the Time of _Ruffinus_, none besides him
ever questioned its Authenticity.

Footnote N44.1:

Hier. in Ruff. l. 3. c. 5, & 6.

-----

[Sidenote: _The Condemnation of_ Origen _owing chiefly to the Bishop of_ Alexandria.]

Such is the Account the contemporary Writers, and _Jerom_ himself, give us of the Condemnation of _Origen_, and his Interpreter _Ruffinus_, very different from that which we read in _Baronius_, introducing his _High Pontiff Anastasius_ as acting the First Part on that Occasion; though _Jerom_ tells us, in express Terms, that _Anastasius_ followed the Example of _Theophilus_; that he condemned in the West, what had before been condemned in the East[1365]; and that _Rome_ and all _Italy_ owed their Deliverance to the Letters of _Theophilus_[1366]; meaning the circular Letter, which _Theophilus_ writ to all the Catholic Bishops, acquainting them that he had condemned _Origen_, and prohibited his Books, and exhorting them to follow his Example[1367]. It was by this Letter that _Anastasius_ was induced to condemn _Origen_: For what else could _Jerom_ mean by saying, that _Rome_ and _Italy_ were, by the Letters of _Theophilus_, delivered from the Errors of _Origen_? _Baronius_ could not but know, that the Letter of _Theophilus_ was addressed to all the Catholic Bishops, since it is styled by _Theophilus_ himself, in a Letter he writ to _Epiphanius_[1368], and by _Epiphanius_, in one of his Letters to _Jerom_[1369], _A general Letter to all Catholics_; and yet the Annalist speaks of it as directed to _Anastasius_ alone, in order to impose by that means on his Readers, and persuade them, _that the Bishop of_ Alexandria _submitted the Sentence he had pronounced to the Judgment of_ Anastasius, _being well apprised_, that it _could be of no Weight unless confirmed by the first See_. Had he been well apprised of this, I cannot think he would have pronounced such a Sentence, as it is very certain he did, without the Authority, the Advice, or even the Knowlege, of the _first See_.

[Sidenote: _The Bishop of_ Aquileia _communicates with_ Ruffinus,
_though excommunicated by_ Anastasius.]

As to _Ruffinus_, _Anastasius_, it is true, separated himself from his Communion; but did not excommunicate him, that is, as the Word is now understood, did not cut him off from the Communion of the Catholic Church, as _Baronius_ insinuates. The Power of excommunicating him in this Sense was by the Canons vested in his own Bishop; and it is manifest from _Jerom_, that _Chromatius_, then Bishop of _Aquileia_, continued to communicate with him after _Anastasius_ had renounced his Communion; nay, after _Chromatius_ himself had condemned _Origen_, and the _Origenists_[1370], that is, those who held the Errors of _Origen_. A plain Proof, that the Bishop of _Aquileia_ did not acquiesce in the Judgment of _Anastasius_ in ranking _Ruffinus_ among them. And truly the only Charge brought against him by _Anastasius_, in his Letter to _John_ of _Jerusalem_, was his having translated _Origen_ into the _Latin_ Tongue, without pointing out his Errors, or offering any Arguments to confute them. Thence he was by _Jerom_ induced to conclude, that _Ruffinus_ held the same Errors. [Sidenote: Ruffinus _unjustly condemned_.] _What could_ Ruffinus _propose_, says he in his Letter, _by translating_ Origen _into the_ Roman _Language? Had he exposed the execrable Errors his Work contains, and raised in his Readers that Indignation which the Author deserves, I should rather have praised than blamed him. But he has in his Mind consented to those Errors, and in translating the Sentiments of_ Origen _expressed his own_[1371]. This _Ruffinus_ denied; declaring, with the Words of _Origen_, in his Preface to the _Periarchon_[1372], that he embraced nothing as Truth, that any-ways differed from the received Doctrines of the Catholic Church: nay, he was so far from defending any of _Origen_’s Errors, which seemed to him repugnant to the Catholic Truths, that in the Apology he composed in Defence of that Writer, as well as in the Preface which he prefixed to his Translation, he undertook to prove, that those Errors were not his, but had been maliciously inserted into his Works, either by his Enemies to eclipse his Reputation, or by Heretics, who had fathered upon him their own Doctrines, with a View of recommending them to the World by the Authority of so great and so venerable a Name[1373]. He followed therein the Example of the most eminent Writers, and the greatest Lights of the Church, namely, of the Martyr _Pamphylus_[1374], of _Athanasius_[1375], _Basil_[1376], his Brother _Gregory_ of _Nyssa_[1377], _Gregory Nazianzen_[1378], and many others, who, out of the great Regard they had for a Man of _Origen_’s Piety and Learning, either ascribed to others the Errors they found in his Works, or excused them, by putting on his Words the most charitable Construction they could bear. [Sidenote: Origen _excused by some of the Fathers, and once by_ Jerom _himself_.] _Jerom_ himself had been formerly one of _Origen_’s greatest Admirers, had translated above Seventy of his Books, and thought he could not employ his Time better than in enriching the _Latin_ Tongue with the Works of _the best Writer and first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles_[1379], as he then styled him. As _Ruffinus_, in his Translation of the _Periarchon_, endeavoured to excuse the Errors of _Origen_, so had _Jerom_ done before him in translating his other Works, chusing rather to _veil and excuse_, than expose the Faults of one whom in other respects he so much admired[1380]. But this Admiration being afterwards changed into an open and avowed Enmity, _the first Doctor of the Church after the Apostles_ became at once not only an _heterodox_, but an _impious Writer_; all who stood up in his Defence were arraigned of the same _pestilential Doctrines_; and what was found amiss in his Works was no longer _veiled_ or _excused_, but set out in the worst Light[N45].

-----

Footnote N45:

Some of the Fathers would not allow even his Doctrine concerning the
Trinity to be heterodox. For some Passages being quoted out of his
Works by the _Arians_ to confirm their Opinions, _Basil_ and
_Nazianzen_ undertook to prove, from other Passages, that his
Sentiments with respect to the Trinity were quite orthodox; and that
the _Arians_ had either out of Malice misinterpreted, or out of
Ignorance misunderstood his Meaning, not being capable of fathoming
the Depth of his Thoughts[N45.1]. It must be owned, that _Origen_, in
several Places, speaks of the Trinity agreeably to the Sentiments of
the Church, acknowleging _the Son to have been from the Beginning in
the Father; to be the Image of the Father; to have been begotten by
him from all Eternity; to be the Wisdom of God; to be God, though not
the Source and Origin of the Divinity, as the Father, whom on that
Account he styles_ Autotheos; _to be above all Creatures; to have the
same Power as the Father, and to deserve the same Honour and Worship_.
But elsewhere he uses Expressions that can no-way bear an orthodox
Sense, _viz._ that _the_ Word _is an Hypostasis different from the
Father_; meaning by the Word _Hypostasis_, Nature and Substance; _that
the Father and Son are One by Concord and Union; that the Son is not
properly God, but called God, because he is the Image of the Divinity;
that the Word and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; that the
Father is greater than the Son; that the Son is inferior to the
Father, though far above all Creatures, as the Ray of the Sun is
inferior to the Sun_; and lastly, _that the Son is the Minister of the
Father_. In these Passages is contained a very different Doctrine from
that which is laid down in those I have quoted above: and hence some
of the Friends of _Origen_, and among the rest _Ruffinus_, concluded
the latter Passages to have been foisted in by the _Arians_, denying
the Divinity of the Word; while others, allowing them to be
_Origen_’s, undertook to explain them in a Catholic Sense, in
Opposition to the _Arians_ confirming their Doctrine with the
Authority of so eminent a Writer. But his Enemies, attending only to
the Passages where he seemed to establish an Inequality in the
Trinity, not only condemned him as an Heretic, but all who stood up in
his Defence, or attempted to interpret his Words in a Catholic Sense.

Footnote N45.1:

Socr. l. 4. c. 26.

-----

But what seems most of all surprising, and quite unaccountable, in the Conduct of that Father, is, that though he had with so much Noise procured _Origen_ to be condemned as an Heretic, and his Books to be prohibited, particularly his _Periarchon_, or, as some will have it, the _Periarchon_ alone, as containing most of his heretical Tenets; yet, in a private Letter to _Paulinus_, he refers him to that very Piece for the Decision of some Questions of the greatest Importance[1381]. But to return to _Anastasius_:

[Sidenote: _The Bishops of_ Africa _apply to_ Anastasius _and_ Venerius
_of_ Milan.]

The same Year 401. in which _Origen_ was condemned, the Churches of _Africa_ being greatly distressed for want of Ecclesiastics, the Bishops of the Province of _Carthage_, assembling under _Aurelius_ Bishop of that City, resolved to dispatch one of their Body into _Italy_ to acquaint _Anastasius_, and _Venerius_ Bishop of _Milan_, with the Condition of the _African_ Churches, and implore their Assistance[1382]. Which of the Bishops was charged with this Legation, or what Success attended it, we are no-where told. But as _Paulinus_, who afterwards writ the Life of St. _Ambrose_, and belonged to the Church of _Milan_, was at this Time sent into _Africa_, and continued there, some have not improbably conjectured, that _Venerius_ at least assisted his Collegues in _Africa_ with a Supply of as many Ecclesiastics as he could spare. _Baronius_ supposes _Anastasius_ to have relieved those Churches with the like Supply; but this Supposition he builds upon the paternal Care which _Anastasius_ had, as _universal Pastor_, of all the Catholic Churches[1383], which is building on a false Foundation.

[Sidenote: Anastasius _advises the Bishops of_ Africa _not to dissemble the Cruelties of the_ Donatists.]

The same Year another Council was held at _Carthage_, consisting of all the Bishops of _Africa_; and _Aurelius_, who presided in this, as he had done in the former, opened it with reading a Letter from _Anastasius_, exhorting the Bishops of _Africa_ no longer to dissemble the Cruelties of the _Donatists_, who continued to use with great Barbarity the Catholic Bishops and Clergy[1384]. The Fathers of the Council returned _Anastasius_ Thanks for his Advice; but, not thinking it quite agreeable to the true Spirit of Christianity, they declined complying with it. [Sidenote: _Who refuse to comply with his Advice._] They knew that their Persecutors, had they complained of their Cruelties to the Civil Magistrate, would have been punished with Death, pursuant to a Law enacted against them, Three Years before, by the Emperors _Arcadius_ and _Honorius_[1385]. They therefore chose, notwithstanding the Advice of _Anastasius_, rather to suffer with Patience a most cruel Persecution, than redeem themselves from it at so dear a Rate[1386]. In the same Council it was decreed among other things, that such of the _Donatist_ Clergy, as should return to the Church, might be admitted, if the Bishop, who received them, thought it expedient, to the same Rank, which they had enjoyed before their Conversion. As a Decree had been lately enacted by _Anastasius_, and the other _Italian_ Bishops, excluding converted Heretics from the Catholic Clergy[1387]; it was to acquaint them with the Motives which had prompted the Fathers assembled at _Carthage_, to admit the _Donatists_, that _Aurelius_ and his Collegues writ to _Anastasius_; and not to beg of him a Dispensation in favour of the converted _Donatists_, as is ridiculously supposed by _Baronius_[1388].

[Sidenote: Anastasius _dies_.]

This is all I find recorded of _Anastasius_, by the antient Writers. He died on the 27th of _April_ 402. after having held the See of _Rome_ Four Years, One Month, and Thirteen Days. [Sidenote: _Is greatly commended by_ Jerom.] _Jerom_, with whom he sided against _Ruffinus_, and the other Friends of _Origen_, distinguishes him with the Title of an _eminent Man_; and adds, _that_ Rome _did not deserve to enjoy him long, lest the Head of the World should be cut off under such a Bishop; nay, he was snatched away_, says he, _lest he should strive to ward off, with his Prayers, the Execution of the Sentence that was already pronounced; the Lord saying to_ Jeremiah, _Pray not for this People for their Good: when they fast, I will not hear their Cry_, &c[1389]. _Jerom_ speaks there of the Calamities that befel _Rome_ Seven Years after, when it was taken by the _Goths_, under _Alaric_. _Theophilus_ Bishop of _Alexandria_, not only an avowed Enemy to _Origen_, but a cruel Persecutor of all who stood up in his Defence, extols _Anastasius_ for his pastoral Care, and indefatigable Pains, in preserving and maintaining the Purity of the Catholic Faith[1390]; alluding, no doubt, to his acting in Concert with him, against _Origen_, and the pretended _Origenists_. [Sidenote: _Is honoured as a Saint._] Be that as it will, _Anastasius_ is now honoured as a Saint by the Church of _Rome_; and the Honours paid him are chiefly owing to the Commendations of _Jerom_ and _Theophilus_, whose Party he so warmly espoused. As to the Writings of _Anastasius_, Mention is made, by _Jerom_, of several Letters written by him on different Occasions; but that alone has reached our Times, which he writ to _John_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, and some Fragments of another to one _Ursinus_, on the _Incarnation_[N46].

-----

Footnote N46:

The Two Decretals that have been transmitted to us under his Name, are
evidently supposititious, the one being dated Fourteen Years before
his Election, and the other Fourteen years after his Death. One of
these pretended Decretals is addressed to the _German_ and
_Burgundian_ Bishops, tho’ nothing is more certain, than that the
_Burgundians_ were not converted to the Christian Religion till many
Years after his Death, till the Year 436. if _Socrates_ is to be
credited[N46.1]. They are both made up of several Passages taken from
the Letters of _Innocent_, _Leo_, _Gregory_, and others; and were, in
all Likelihood, forged, as many others have been, by _Isidorus
Mercator_.

Footnote N46.1:

Socr. l. 7. c. 30.

-----

[Sidenote: _An ill-timed Observation of_ Baronius.]